• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When is crime wrong?

MateoMtnClimber

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
11,506
Reaction score
3,207
Location
Colorado, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I had a good chat with another poster the other day. It made me consider the nature of crime. The word has separate legal and ethical implications.

I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified? If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?
 
I had a good chat with another poster the other day. It made me consider the nature of crime. The word has separate legal and ethical implications.

I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified? If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?

Yes, most crimes, not all, can be justified given the right circumstances. Stealing to provide food for your family because you don't even have 1 cent to your name and all other avenues that are available in your area are exhausted is imo justifiable. Stealing to make a buck is wrong however. Both crimes fall under the same category of "theft" so it would be unwise and foolhardy to question the law in this case. However that does not mean that we have to prosecute that person for stealing to feed their family. Juries do have a Right to Jury Nullification and can use it in such instances. In essence they nullify the law for that particular incident. Leaving the law intact for such instances when the crime committed is not justifiable.
 
I had a good chat with another poster the other day. It made me consider the nature of crime. The word has separate legal and ethical implications.

I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified? If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?

You should always question how just your laws are, which includes how well the law book is used. Right now very very poorly, and the laws are often poorly written, our judges benches have been largely wrecked all the way to SCOTUS by the politicians and the public who rarely give a damn.....
 
Yes, most crimes, not all, can be justified given the right circumstances. Stealing to provide food for your family because you don't even have 1 cent to your name and all other avenues that are available in your area are exhausted is imo justifiable. Stealing to make a buck is wrong however. Both crimes fall under the same category of "theft" so it would be unwise and foolhardy to question the law in this case. However that does not mean that we have to prosecute that person for stealing to feed their family. Juries do have a Right to Jury Nullification and can use it in such instances. In essence they nullify the law for that particular incident. Leaving the law intact for such instances when the crime committed is not justifiable.

Then why, ethically speaking, is stealing to provide food for your family acceptable while stealing to make a buck is wrong?
 
You should always question how just your laws are, which includes how well the law book is used. Right now very very poorly, and the laws are often poorly written, our judges benches have been largely wrecked all the way to SCOTUS by the politicians and the public who rarely give a damn.....

That doesn't answer my question, but thank you for responding.
 
I had a good chat with another poster the other day. It made me consider the nature of crime. The word has separate legal and ethical implications.

I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified? If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?

Most everyone knows of an illegal act that they think isnt bad ethically.

I think the reverse question is much more interesting. A legal act (that you still think should be legal) but you find unethical. It seems that people are so hard wired that legal=moral that we make too many laws or that people are immune from criticism if the commit a legal act.
 
I had a good chat with another poster the other day. It made me consider the nature of crime. The word has separate legal and ethical implications.

I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified? If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?

It is a crime to kill another person, unless the particular circumstances fit into certain pigeon-holes. Mercy killing would be a crime that might be justified in a jury trial. Intentionally murdering a man you saw raping your daughter might be excused in a jury trial. A six-year-old who murdered his mom with a gun might not be prosecuted. There are many examples where, technically, a crime has been committed but nobody is going to be convicted of it.
 
It is a crime to kill another person, unless the particular circumstances fit into certain pigeon-holes. Mercy killing would be a crime that might be justified in a jury trial. Intentionally murdering a man you saw raping your daughter might be excused in a jury trial. A six-year-old who murdered his mom with a gun might not be prosecuted. There are many examples where, technically, a crime has been committed but nobody is going to be convicted of it.

Killing in self-defense is acceptable. Killing in battle of war is encouraged.
 
Most everyone knows of an illegal act that they think isnt bad ethically.

I think the reverse question is much more interesting. A legal act (that you still think should be legal) but you find unethical. It seems that people are so hard wired that legal=moral that we make too many laws or that people are immune from criticism if the commit a legal act.

I don't mean to make a political statement, but your question, which is good, makes me think of laws related to age of consent and statutory rape.

How would you answer your question?
 
It is a crime to kill another person, unless the particular circumstances fit into certain pigeon-holes. Mercy killing would be a crime that might be justified in a jury trial. Intentionally murdering a man you saw raping your daughter might be excused in a jury trial. A six-year-old who murdered his mom with a gun might not be prosecuted. There are many examples where, technically, a crime has been committed but nobody is going to be convicted of it.

Yeah, but I'm asking, when is a crime ethically tolerated?
 
I had a good chat with another poster the other day. It made me consider the nature of crime. The word has separate legal and ethical implications.

I wonder when crime is "bad" and when it is simply illegal. Can crime be justified? If it can, should we question the law that makes the relevant act illegal?

As if this were ever a simple question to be answered here or anywhere.

The following is a true set of events, a non-hypothetical:

A man, under the influence of alcohol and crystal meth, breaks into a home about 3 in the morning. With a large kitchen knife he stabs the husband in the abdomen who came downstairs to investigate his miniature Shnauzer's barking. After crushing the dog's head under his boot, he then ties the stabbed man to a kitchen chair, grabs the man's wife who followed her husband a few minutes after he went downstairs, rapes her, sodomizes her, slits her throat in front of her barely conscious husband. He leaves the room to search the house for valuables, returns with the 11 year old daughter who had been hiding in her bedroom closet, in front of her father, rapes her, sodomizes her, and slits her throat with that same kitchen knife, stabs the father in the abdomen again, leaving him to bleed out as he smiles at him and walks out the front door.

About an hour later, a neighbor returning from a late shift at the firehouse he worked at, notices the open front door, enters the house shouting Hello, but receives no response. He starts checking around the house and enters the kitchen where all of this happened. He calls 911, checks for signs of life, places pressure on the husband/father's two wounds to staunch the bleeding. Police and EMTs arrive, take over, save the man's life, stabilizing him, giving him plasma, and they take him to an ER. Both the mother and daughter had bled out and were dead. The victim remains unconscious for three days, upon waking describes the assailant to the police who recognize a description of a star tattooed over his left eye. They arrest him, and the victim identifies the suspect.

At the hearing, the defense attorney negotiates a plea deal for manslaughter, unintended homicide, temporary insanity brought about by substance abuse. The suspect is sentenced to 3 years in a state prison for the insane, a mandatory detox program, and a six year probationary release pursuant to the treatment by state employed medical personnel. He spends 9 months institutionalized and is released "a good citizen" who completed the detox to the satisfaction of medical personnel, who noted his good behavior while institutionalized to the probation board.

Three weeks later, the victim caught up with the perpetrator, shot him first in both knees, then both elbows, and while he was lying on the sidewalk, the victim started carving him up with a large hunting knife, pulled out his abdominal organs with his hands, wrapping his intestines around the neck and head of his former assailant while he still lived and screamed. He smiled at his former assailant and now victim as he shot him and sliced him up, laughed loudly as he gutted him. He sat down next to his former assailant, quietly laughing until police arrived, calmly surrendered himself. He was arrested for Murder One, intentional homicide, torture, assault and vigilantism. No question the avenging husband/father broke the law. The hearing judge declared his actions a justified homicide, acquitted this poor man, who committed suicide the next day.

I went to grammar school with that 11 year old girl. Knew her from kindergarten, until I attended her funeral. This case made me decide to pursue a police career.

You can play with hypotheticals all you want, and you will accomplish nothing. The things people do to each other is all too often, beyond belief. The reasons, often never to be understood. If there are reasons.

More than 2,000 children went missing today in this country. More than 2,000 children go missing every day in this country. More than 1/2 a million children every year. Do something real with your time, contribute to resolving this issue. The FBI claims less than a 1/2 dozen missing children everyday are taken by strangers. THE FBI is FOS.
 
As if this were ever a simple question to be answered here or anywhere.

The following is a true set of events, a non-hypothetical:

A man, under the influence of alcohol and crystal meth, breaks into a home about 3 in the morning. With a large kitchen knife he stabs the husband in the abdomen who came downstairs to investigate his miniature Shnauzer's barking. After crushing the dog's head under his boot, he then ties the stabbed man to a kitchen chair, grabs the man's wife who followed her husband a few minutes after he went downstairs, rapes her, sodomizes her, slits her throat in front of her barely conscious husband. He leaves the room to search the house for valuables, returns with the 11 year old daughter who had been hiding in her bedroom closet, in front of her father, rapes her, sodomizes her, and slits her throat with that same kitchen knife, stabs the father in the abdomen again, leaving him to bleed out as he smiles at him and walks out the front door.

About an hour later, a neighbor returning from a late shift at the firehouse he worked at, notices the open front door, enters the house shouting Hello, but receives no response. He starts checking around the house and enters the kitchen where all of this happened. He calls 911, checks for signs of life, places pressure on the husband/father's two wounds to staunch the bleeding. Police and EMTs arrive, take over, save the man's life, stabilizing him, giving him plasma, and they take him to an ER. Both the mother and daughter had bled out and were dead. The victim remains unconscious for three days, upon waking describes the assailant to the police who recognize a description of a star tattooed over his left eye. They arrest him, and the victim identifies the suspect.

At the hearing, the defense attorney negotiates a plea deal for manslaughter, unintended homicide, temporary insanity brought about by substance abuse. The suspect is sentenced to 3 years in a state prison for the insane, a mandatory detox program, and a six year probationary release pursuant to the treatment by state employed medical personnel. He spends 9 months institutionalized and is released "a good citizen" who completed the detox to the satisfaction of medical personnel, who noted his good behavior while institutionalized to the probation board.

Three weeks later, the victim caught up with the perpetrator, shot him first in both knees, then both elbows, and while he was lying on the sidewalk, the victim started carving him up with a large hunting knife, pulled out his abdominal organs with his hands, wrapping his intestines around the neck and head of his former assailant while he still lived and screamed. He smiled at his former assailant and now victim as he shot him and sliced him up, laughed loudly as he gutted him. He sat down next to his former assailant, quietly laughing until police arrived, calmly surrendered himself. He was arrested for Murder One, intentional homicide, torture, assault and vigilantism. No question the avenging husband/father broke the law. The hearing judge declared his actions a justified homicide, acquitted this poor man, who committed suicide the next day.

I went to grammar school with that 11 year old girl. Knew her from kindergarten, until I attended her funeral. This case made me decide to pursue a police career.

You can play with hypotheticals all you want, and you will accomplish nothing. The things people do to each other is all too often, beyond belief. The reasons, often never to be understood. If there are reasons.

More than 2,000 children went missing today in this country. More than 2,000 children go missing every day in this country. More than 1/2 a million children every year. Do something real with your time, contribute to resolving this issue. The FBI claims less than a 1/2 dozen missing children everyday are taken by strangers. THE FBI is FOS.

I feel terribly for you, for the family you described, and for everyone who knew and cared about them. I do not intend to trivialize trauma.
 
I feel terribly for you, for the family you described, and for everyone who knew and cared about them. I do not intend to trivialize trauma.

Lip service accomplishes nothing. Contributing time, energy, working for resolution of these type of issues, however effective or not, is the only response.
 
A crime is only wrong when it harms another. And that harm might be indirect.
 
Lip service accomplishes nothing. Contributing time, energy, working for resolution of these type of issues, however effective or not, is the only response.

Right. I'm committed and contribute to a number of causes that are important to me for personal reasons, as yours are to you.
 
A crime is only wrong when it harms another. And that harm might be indirect.

That's a very libertarian perspective with which I completely agree.

How can we gauge the indirect harm of crime? For example, I steal food from a chain grocer to feed a starving person because neither that person nor I have any money. Someone at the store loses her job because the inventory was off. Was it a justified crime?
 
Then why, ethically speaking, is stealing to provide food for your family acceptable while stealing to make a buck is wrong?

One case serves a moral purpose--avoiding starvation for your family. The other case serves only greed.
 
It is a crime to kill another person, unless the particular circumstances fit into certain pigeon-holes. Mercy killing would be a crime that might be justified in a jury trial. Intentionally murdering a man you saw raping your daughter might be excused in a jury trial. A six-year-old who murdered his mom with a gun might not be prosecuted. There are many examples where, technically, a crime has been committed but nobody is going to be convicted of it.

I happened to sit in on such a trial, not as a juror, but only as an observer. I heard things the jury was not allowed to hear. The court committed a gross injustice. I lost many nights of sleep over that horrible abuse by the judge.
 
I happened to sit in on such a trial, not as a juror, but only as an observer. I heard things the jury was not allowed to hear. The court committed a gross injustice. I lost many nights of sleep over that horrible abuse by the judge.

I’m making the assumption the defendant was found not guilty...? This, what often appears as the court going overboard in its protection of rights, can too often result in a guilty as sin defendant going free. Such is Lady Justice...
 
I’m making the assumption the defendant was found not guilty...? This, what often appears as the court going overboard in its protection of rights, can too often result in a guilty as sin defendant going free. Such is Lady Justice...

It's really a long story because the trial lasted a week. I was there every day, but the jury was not there for one day, and testimony was given that day that the jury was never allowed to hear.

A young man, a juvenile at the time, shot both his parents in the kitchen on a Sunday morning. He left the house in that rural part of the county, flagged down the first deputy he saw, climbed in the back seat of the squad car and spilled his guts to the deputy. He could not wait to tell his sordid story to somebody, and it was a most sordid story. He did take the stand, and it was brutal to hear.

He had been sodomized by his father since an early age. Eventually he shared that with his mother and begged for her intervention. She rejected him, and told him to not talk about it. Secrets to be kept she said. The mother was a twin, and had at least one other sister. It turns out all the sisters had begged her not to marry the man. It turns out the sisters scraped together and hired the attorneys to represent the boy.

IMO the jury was quite sympathetic to the defense case. The prosecutor was an asshole, and the boy's testimony was heart-rending. In the end, because the judge would not allow the jury to hear corroborating evidence, the jury convicted the boy.
 
Back
Top Bottom